memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Stem bolt
Citation Not sure why a citation is needed for the observation that the props are a reuse of the warp injector casings from a previous episode. It is obvious from the screen cap. removed from page . }} Reason: on page for years. -- Cid Highwind 17:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC) Moved from the page :'Common CONFUSION/Misattribution with spent warp injector casings''' :Spent warp injector casings: as seen in Star Trek: Enterprise - Season 2, Episode 7: The Seventh in which SPOILER ALERT - Menos claims to have an honest job hauling spent warp injector casings... T'Pol breaks into his ship to findout if this backs up his story... These are definitely meant to be interpereted to be the said "spent warp injector casings". :Image of spent warp injector casings :The CAUSE OF CONFUSION as to what exactly spent warp injector casings actually look like was caused in a later episode in Star Trek: Enterprise Season 3 Episode 2: Anomaly. :28 minutes and 10 seconds into this episode Lieutenant Malcolm Reed is heard saying; "Their not gonna run out of stem bolts anytime soon"... just as he stands in front of a huge container of spent warp injector casings (as seen in the earlier episode listed above). :It is unclear why they made such a misleading remark where the verbal implication doesn't match the visual stimuli in front of the character? :Also, these spent warp injector casings look absolutely nothing like self sealing stem bolts (which have been seen earlier in Deep Space Nine Self-Sealing Stem Bolts Entry. I believe any other interpretation is clearly flawed. :I remember both of the first two episodes listed above clear as day as I'm on a huge Enterprise binge (and previously TNG, DS9 and VOY). So they are all fresh in my memory. :I watched the former episode within the last day or two, and I'm watching the latter as we speak. That is in fact; why I googled this in the first place. Because as soon as I came to this scene where he says "Their not gonna run out of stem bolts anytime soon"... I paused it straight away and thought..."Huh? That's clearly not right?" -- Petdevils Moved this here. The talk page is where discussion goes. --LauraCC (talk) 16:26, May 26, 2016 (UTC) ::In reading this through, looking at the history on both articles in question, etc, it strikes me that there was prop reuse between these two episodes. ::The big issue is that in the first episode (Season 2's ), it's clear that the prop used is intended to represent warp injector casings. Then, in (Season 3), it's clear that Reed is referring to these items he's looking at (the same prop) as stem bolts. ::As such, for all we know, the casings and the stem bolts are any of the following: ::a) absolutely identical in look, and only discernible to someone in the Trek universe. ::b) actually the same thing ::c) an accident by the script/prop team/someone else that's caused some grief and confusion today ::I personally lean to © there, but the fact remains that they were referred to as one thing in the first episode, and something else in the second episode. That does not mean that the entire article must be rewritten, changed, etc, as in , the items you're looking at in that picture were CLEARLY called "stem bolts". -- sulfur (talk) 16:57, May 26, 2016 (UTC) Moved from User talk:sulfur Hi, This is my first 'attempt' to make an edit/addition to a wiki and if every future effort gets needlessly pulled like this one has I don't know if i'll waste my time in future. It is clear that you are intent on ensuring that false information remains listed wrongly in memory-alpha.... what I don't know -is why? It is clear from the discussion notes from other people that i'm not the first to point this out and I'm clearly not the first person people like you have hassled and unedited. What is the problem? You are wrong - not me. I don't care if you (and laura?) think it's more of a discussion... if that's your issue then i'd be happy for your to summarise the pertinent info and post a link to the rest of it as a discussion. However, putting it right back to what it is displaying now is flat out wrong. So what's the deal? And clearly not just this post but all the other edits I made which were relevant to the same thing and they are therefor wrong and incomplete too. If you have a problem with any minor webpage mistakes I've made - then a) remember that this was my first time; and b) please feel free to go ahead and fix any 'minor' errors yourself as long as you don't butcher the important content. Don't you think that would be far more reasonable rather than simply pulling every single change I made within seconds of them being posted live? Is this all you do? Do you even read them before you pull them? I've seen forum mods who do this kind of thing simply because they get a sense of power from bullying people they don't know. They don't even read the body of the threads let alone even read the full title sometimes... and they never enjoy admitting when they are wrong (which they have had to do). i'm getting that vibe from you right now? Prove me wrong and show you can recognize when you make a mistake - just as I'm happy to admit - and make a reasonable compromise as I suggested to put my various edits back up. Please speak to laura also as you both edited the posts all related to the same issue. I'd like a proper response please. thank you pd. Petdevils (talk) 16:44, May 26, 2016 (UTC) :I don't know whether it's inaccurate or not, but if you think it is, put a "pna inaccurate" tag on the page, and feel free to justify why you think or know it is on the talk page. Or be bold and change the information. Your reasons for doing so don't belong on the main article page. Your contribution is appreciated. Assuming it's true (because like I said, I don't know firsthand), good catch! :D --LauraCC (talk) 16:48, May 26, 2016 (UTC) :Sorry sulfur if it seems like I'm hijacking your page, but I was addressed too. :P --LauraCC (talk) 16:49, May 26, 2016 (UTC)